This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why More Econ Majors Are Republicans Rather Than Democrats
From The Daily Capitalist
The New York Fed just published a study on the political and civic behaviors of college graduates based on their majors (“Is Economics Coursework, or Majoring in Economics, Associated with Different Civic Behaviors?” Sam Allgood, William Bosshardt, Wilbert van der Klaauw, and Michael Watts (no. 450, May 2010)). Don't ask me why they study these things, but they do.
This was a longitudinal study based on surveys mailed out to over 25,000 graduates from Florida Atlantic (FAU), Nebraska-Lincoln, North Carolina (UNC), and Purdue. The surveys were done in 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2003. They broke down majors into three broad categories--economics, business, and general (not the other two majors).
They concluded that econ majors were statistically significantly likely to be Republicans. They also found that econ majors were more likely to donate money and volunteer on behalf of candidates. Further it found that business majors behaviors were no different than genral majors.
Here are the significant results:
[O]ur results clearly suggest there is more to the story than simply “being educated” – so that what people study in college, or what they choose to study, is associated with their civic behaviors many years after they graduate.
Most previous studies that look at the link between education and civic behavior simply include a control for the amount of education a person has. This implies “being educated” influences a person’s civic behavior, but it ignores the possibility that the content of what a person is learning might also influence behavior.
Our analysis shows several statistically and economically significant associations between coursework in economics, or majoring in economics or business, and later civic behavior, including party affiliation, making donations to political parties, and volunteerism. ...
To briefly preview our results, those who took more economics classes or who majored in economics or business were more likely to be members of the Republican party and less likely to join the Democratic party. Those findings hold even after controlling for the higher salary, higher equity in real estate holdings, and earning a graduate degree.
Without controlling for salary, the value of real estate holdings, and graduate degrees earned, we found that with a higher number of economics classes taken increased the likelihood that a person had donated money to a political party or campaign. ...
The number of economics courses completed by the graduates of these four schools significantly decreases the likelihood that a person does not join a political party and the likelihood of joining the Democratic party, while the number of economics courses is positively related to the likelihood of joining the Republican party. For example, taking five economics courses is associated with an eight percent decrease in the likelihood of joining the Democratic party and more than a 10 percent higher chance of joining the Republican party. These marginal effects are large relative to the unconditional means reported in Table 1. For example, approximately 40 percent of respondents report being members of the Republican party, so a 10 percentage point increase for 5 economics courses represents a 25 percent increase. ...
However, business majors are less likely than General majors to participate in time consuming activities such as voting in the 2000 Presidential election or volunteering, and when they volunteer they volunteer for fewer hours than do General majors. ... Our estimates reveal the somewhat surprising result that the attitudes of business students on public policy are more similar to General majors than to Economics majors.
I think what this means is that if you have some understanding of how the economy works, you realize that business and commerce is harmed by legislation rather than helped by it. While we know that the Republican Party is not a bastion of free market economics, if you are painting with a very broad brush the Republicans are viewed as being more pro-business and more anti-government than the Democrats. And I think that is why econ majors tend to be Republicans.
I understand that much of what is taught in economics classes these days in Keynesian or Monetarist as far as Fed policy and the government's role in the economy, so please don't jump down my throat. But the basics of economics do teach supply and demand, business responses to taxation and regulation, and the role of business in creating jobs. It is interesting that the more econ courses one takes, the higher the likelihood is of being Republican.
I wonder what the party affiliation is of Ph.Ds in economics?
I, for one, think this is a hopeful conclusion. Imagine if we were able to teach the basics of Austrian theory economics in every college in America. The Libertarians would win.
»
- advertisements -
Would one handed Economists be Independents?
Sadly, the repubs are only marginally better on the whole. But this article from Reason magazine makes an interesting point:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/01/do-liberals-suffer-from-arrest
Interesting article. Thanks.
I think Republicans are just Mini-me Democrats for the most part: intervention is OK, just not so much.
"I think Republicans are just Mini-me Democrats for the most part: intervention is OK, just not so much."
Aye! The old sun and moon theory of two party politics (the party out of power offering a pale reflection of the policies of the party in power).
But this depression is beginning to shake loose some real mavericks like Rand Paul and the Gov. of Arizona.
A double dip and this could get real interesting!
Bingo!
But, I think you do need to distinguish between conservatives and Republicans. Most conservatives are Republican, but not all Republicans are conservative.
Then you need to distinguish between reactionaries and conservatives.
In fact, this break down could go a lot further
It appears to me that both political parties have exploded on the political spectrum in the last 5 decades.
For example, I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, but at the same time, I kind of like some of what Alan Grayson has to say. And amazingly, they happen to team up. Now, If i had to choose which one gets to be re-elected, I'd choose Paul every day of the week, including on Sunday. But, at the end of the day, I personally am appalled at the middle politicians and am attracted to the wings.
If John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were alive today, both would be considered right wing conservatives. They would both be on the fringe. Even Ronald Wilson Reagan would be considered to the left of those two. The country has moved decisively left over the last 80 years. Prosperity has a way of doing that to a country, I think.
For example, George McGovern (Democrat) proposed sending checks to every American while running for president in 1968, as a way of stimulating the economy. He became a laughing stock, and lost in a massive landslide. Fast Forward just a few decades, and our "compassionate" "conservative" president Bush (Republican) decides to cut checks to everyone and everyone applauds him. (except for conservatives like me and JFK and MLK, who were laughing our asses off or turning in our graves)
On the other hand, it could be something in the water that is making us all a lot dumber. Maybe it's the Fluoride..
How would MLK be considered right wing by today' standard, have you read anything about his last years of his life? Is there a conservative scrubbing machine on all of history? Is Beck talking about this?, why is this suddenly a common meme?
If I described someone as a
pacifist,
anti-war
union supporter
someone who called some US wars as imperialistic and said US greatest purveyor of violence in the world
someone who organized poor peoples campaigns
someone who spoke out against racial discrimination and economic injustice...
does conservative or liberal come to mind, by today's standards???
consider these facts of the end of MLK's life:
MLK died while supporting union workers on strike:
What was MLK doing in Memphis when he was killed? "King went in support of the black sanitary public works employees, represented by AFSCME Local 1733, who had been on strike since March 12 for higher wages and better treatment"
What do MLK do exactly one-year, to the day, before he was assassinated (strange coincidence)?
MLK publicly opposed Vietnam war:
"In an April 4, 1967 appearance at the New York City Riverside Church—exactly one year before his death—King delivered a speech titled "Beyond Vietnam". In the speech, he spoke strongly against the U.S.'s role in the war, insisting that the U.S. was in Vietnam "to occupy it as an American colony" and calling the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today". He also argued that the country needed larger and broader moral changes:
MLK often spoke and acted on behalf poor people and organized Poor Peoples Campaign. "In 1966, after several successes in the South, King and others in the civil rights organizations tried to spread the movement to the North, with Chicago as its first destination. King and Ralph Abernathy, both from the middle classes, moved into the slums of North Lawndale on the west side of Chicago as an educational experience and to demonstrate their support and empathy for the poor."
"In 1968, King and the SCLC organized the "Poor People's Campaign" to address issues of economic justice. The campaign culminated in a march on Washington, D.C. demanding economic aid to the poorest communities of the United States. King traveled the country to assemble "a multiracial army of the poor" that would march on Washington to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol until Congress created a bill of rights for poor Americans."
quotes above are from Wikpedia starting at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War
Are these MLK quotes more like a current liberal or conservative?
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."
"One of the greatest casualties of the war in Vietnam is the Great Society... shot down on the battlefield of Vietnam."
"It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it."
"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."
"Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
"That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing. "
"The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?"
"The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"
"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic'
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness"
"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear."
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
"It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society."
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
The very core of MLK's message was an appeal to judge people not by the color of their skin but bu the content of their character. That is essentially an anti-Left position these days when we are all constantly told that race and ethnicity is everything. Walk into any school in America during their week-long MLK celebrations and this once, most famous (besides "I have a dream...") quote will be nowhere in evidence.
did you miss my post above, I put all that up that to directly and thoroughly counter the line you just repeated, and you do not have a direct response except to return to meme I think I gave plenty evidence? MLK was against racial discrimination, oppression....so if, say white people are being discriminated against and as a group being denied opportunity, I suppose we could conjecture his morality would be opposed to it. So in that regard, he may have something in common with color blindness advocates...but look at the whole of the man and his viewpoints, anyone now advocating for all of what he did in his life time would not be considered conservative on the whole...while many conservatives now would not argue against his opposition to racial discrimination as they once did.
And the content of charcter quote is still very often used in schools, I have seen it on homework assignments, banners at schools, reading assignments etc. So I didn't get where your statement is coming from.
The fact remains that there is still much racial discrimination and bias in private sectors of economy and in govt, in that criminal justice system is proven to be racially biased. Practically anything that has been studied, from ability to rent an apartment, get a loan, get a good rate on a loan, get a call back on your resume, get an offer on a house accepted to getting cop discretion not to arrest you, once arrested getting prosecutorial discretion not to charge you, get a not guilty verdict from jury, get a lesser sentence from a jury has been shown to racially biased against black and brown people. FBI and other credible sources say black people use and sell drugs no more than white people, and latinos are actually less likely to use and sell drugs than whites, but in many states the ratio or black people going to prison on drug charges are 10:1 to 20:1 on a per capita basis!
Exactly true, he became a threat when he started to organize the poor. Prior to that 'TPTB' probably allowed his behaviour because race warfare distracts from class warfare.
Right, the real question is why more Republicans aren't republicans.
Yes, might be more apt to say "right wing" vs Republican as most Republican politicians are not right wing in action.
LOL, Libs and morals.....
Just take the damn unspecified job and get out of the damn race!
***** "
Studies of voting behavior and civic participation typically include measures for the level
of education attainment (Ashenfelter and Kelley 1975; Matsusaka and Palda 1999; Kan and
Yang 2001; Dee 2004) Dee (2005) further claims that the
type of education matters, reporting
that adults who attended Catholic schools are more likely to participate in civic activities such as
voting." *****
Did you notice all the case study work was from pre-BlackBushSwan? 2005?
You sell me the idea that anyone who can operate a calculator post Bush is going to consider Republicant's Conservative... Martin Luther King was a Republicant... but not now a days.
that adults who attended Catholic schools are more likely to participate in civic activities such as
voting." *****
Did you notice all the case study work was from pre-BlackBushSwan? 2005?
Pre-Acorn, too.
Catholics are more likely to participate in the Crusades...
Did you know that the Catholics during the Crusades killed a LOT! more wanna be christians than others?
Keep that "W" sticker on your car so you will be easy to find if the lights go out... "pro-life" stickers work as well... or "drill baby drill" any and / or all will work.
You fucking indiot evangelicals forgot that there is in fact the other kind of liberal, not the nazi political correct kind... the kind that has had enough of your stupidity and would rather see you gone... and I dont mean hug it out, hippie! gone.
JW n FL
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_lib...
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
Gore married money... Gore does NOT! wear the pants in his family structure.
"Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average."
I think everyone in those States that voted for Bush should be rounded up and shot, in the face... twice.
Texas... as a whole should be burned to the ground and sold to the Mexicans.
Fuck Bush and Fuck Texas! and Fuck the Horse they both rode in on.
Fucking Evangelical Trash! mucking up a perfectly good Country.
is giving to your church considered as part of charitable giving? if so, I'm not impressed.
"The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion." Churches I have been member of always suggested tithing to the church, so, surprise, religious people give lost of money to church. To reduce it to an extreme, members or cults are the most altruistic, as they give everything to their church.
I have hung out occasionally at evangelical Christian churches, the members give a lot of money, some of it goes to truly altruist things, but most of the money goes to the building, the staff, and AV equipment, the amenities, the well paid pastors, evangelical missionaries, mission trips, proselytizing. Ben Franklin said lighthouses are more helpful than churches. Yes some of these givings are truly, unselfishly helpful to people, but most of it is members of a social and ideologically-bound community paying for the org they participate and benefit from, something that they believe is good for the children, something that gives them direction and a encouragement, a port in the storm. Rotary people do something similar in building a community of people that network and help each other but they spend more of their money on straight-up charities, like wiping out polio.
All of which is of course way better than every man for himself, selfish anti-community stuff, but I wouldn't exactly call supporting your church financially is the height altruism...
moneymutt
"is giving to your church considered as part of charitable giving? if so, I'm not impressed."
Church's run soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Some offer counseling for all types of addiction and other problems.
So, you are not impressed that the poor are being helped. That children receive at least one meal a day , that families have a place to stay safe and secure and people who should be in the gutter have a chance to better themselves.
already admitted and noted churches do some good...so do businesses...many businesses give to food shelves, United Way, homeless and battered women's shelters, etc...and business members/employees donate volunteer days.
I said I was not impressed by religious peoples' altruism if it is solely defined by the large amounts of money they give to their church.
To me, your point does not refute my main point, that most of church donations, labeled as charitable deductions, go to the mutual benefit of the church members and staff, and their recruitment/marketing department (evangelism/missionary work). Compare this with a mainly charitable org, where only small percentage of donations are spent administration and rest of donations going directly to aid. If I spend $100 and get a product worth $95 and the corporation donates $5 to charity, I do not consider this $100 worth of charitable giving, rather $5 of charity. How much of most churches budgets go directly to charity/aid? I think the folks behind the Masters golf have a club that its members greatly appreciate and give generously towards, the club adds greatly to their social lives, and also donates heavily to local charities. Nothing wrong with that, for sure, just, I would not call the golf membership fee as wholly charitable.
This "other kind of liberal"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
I am one of those, but with a Gun...
Republicant's or Dumbocrat's... either way Lobby Whores! and as far as economics majors... magic math personalities? yeah!
December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/
HOME is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. Each year it allocates approximately $2 billion among the States and hundreds of localities nationwide. The program was designed to reinforce several important values and principles of community development:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/
Which was part of: HOME is authorized under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended. Program regulations are at 24 CFR Part 92.
Which Daddy Bush pushed thru...
Now, after pumping all of these dollars in... Bush cut funding, never mine the shit head idiot dems v. reps...
When Bush pumped the housing market, with the magic, un-written Federal backstop clause and then cut the funding... all of that 50 to 1 leverage took on a new sheen... 50 to 1 leverage for an ongoing Federal Program, or as I would call it... The big boys feeding from the public trough of tax dollars... was safe, safe enough that how many absolute return funds bought into the rated, magic Federal funded and back stopped debt machine / vehicles? LOTS!
But, when the Federal monies where cut... and the magic backstop was found to be a lie... the domino's fell, one after another... Goldman, being smarter than the rest bought shorts and insurance? how many different ways did Goldman profit from the failure, per deal... in the plainest of terms... for every one dollar in failed debt Goldman earned $2 dollars? Short + Swaps? I am guessing there just for the fun of it... sorry.
But the failure was brought on by Bush pumping and then de-stabilizing the Federal dollars (really tax payer dollars) that where assumed to be safe by Bear, Lehman and so on... Don't get me wrong, Barney is an idiot Lobby whore just like Bush... but there is no difference between Barney, Bush, Obama, Clinton and so on... they are all moved by Lobby dollars... the song and dance is strictly for the public's entertainment.
Obama is Bush part duex.. he is not a commie, he has taken every Bush program and ran with it... not run from it. Dont get caught up in the public spin machine.
I offer... http://www.opensecrets.org/ see who owns your favorite representatives and then for fun look at the dem's side who should be against the reps push... and see how the dollars move the votes, not the party affiliations.
John Mcsame spent all of a whole 10 minutes yesterday grilling Goldman, and said he was very disappointed in Goldmans behavior... he spoke less that the girl in Levin's ear...
Top Industries
John McCain
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00006424&type=I
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
$33,457,679
$745,772
$32,711,907
Lawyers & Lobbyists
$13,170,368
$307,508
$12,862,860
Other
$42,122,454
$8,400
$42,114,054
John McSame spent 100 times less times talking about how we all have been screwed by Goldman for around 10 times more money than the other committee members where Bribed... Oops, I mean Lobbied with.
There is no difference between the two parties, the lobby has bought and paid for all the whores inside the beltway, dont think because of the cute sound bite you like hearing that the two parties are any different.
>There is no difference between the two parties, the lobby has bought and paid for all the whores inside the beltway
People are slowly starting to wake up to the fact that Repubs & Dems are just "two wings of the same bird of prey". Two words will fix our broken system-TERM LIMITS.
Term limits won't help much. Look at California. It's legislature has term limits, but the same corporate and union whores just hop from office to office. CA's government is as polarized and dysfunctional as ever.
The better solution is to (1) eliminate gerrymandering of congressional districts that allow the hyper-partisan fringe of each party to wield power disproportionate to their real support; and (2) eliminate all campaign contributions except capped contributions from individuals to candidates. No party slush funds, no PACs,...
"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference. " - Ralph Nader
No difference in the parties yet because lameoids like you sit on your butts and do nothing. You out campaining for anyone? I have for Rubio the last 3 weeks.
Narsicrist sux.
Meeks has an appropos name.
Rubio is a bought and paid for shill. Expect more of the same with him.
Rejecting the two party options is suddenly doing nothing, narcissist....if you represent most activist conservatives, we are truly lost as a country.....you may not agree with him but Nader has been doing a bit more than nothing for decades fighting both parties. Only legit action is to support a conservative Repub candidate?....and you give partisan conservative a bad name as you use personal slights, as opposed discussing disagreement in ideas...lame bullies always like to push people around by attacking them emotionally...if you knew anything personal about this anonymous poster, no doubt you would have used that.
We will not correct this country until people realize another Republican (or another Democrat) is not the solution...like Rubio is some sort sort of rationale and sincere public servant that is just about making things better for FL.....how much money does he take from big businesses, special interests..whose side will he be on, the regular folks commonwealth and liberty...or like our SCOTUS, which keeps reducing personal liberties while increasing corporate liberties.....wake up.
You can have the answers to the universe, you may have real solutions for the betterment of mankind... but unless you can afford an army of lobbyists... and the pay offs for the whores inside the belt way.... it doesnt matter..
Which party would you feel more comfortable owning a member of?
Unless you have the ability to Buy one of the whores?
There is nothing anyone can do except stroke the check, no amount of tea parties and / or other will change the system...
The American Public is sooooooooooooooooooooooo very stupid, not ignorant... out fucking right stupid... and the Masses think that Obama is a Liberal and that Bush was a Conservative... the masses get led around by thier noses.
You can have the answers to the universe, you may have real solutions for the betterment of mankind... but unless you can afford an army of lobbyists... and the pay offs for the whores inside the belt way.... it doesnt matter..
Now you go yell real loud in the street... "Go Team!" but you will not fix stupid, not today or the next day and even the day after...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=PlayList&p=C1B06538A32767DF&playnext_from=PL&index=168
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27f0IimLQpU&feature=related
"Now you go yell real loud in the street... "Go Team!" but you will not fix stupid, not today or the next day and even the day after..."
Fantastically well put sir!
As a profession, haven't economists, left right center, failed us? Why is a background in mainstream economics something to brag on? Having such a background seems to hinder ones ability to predict and solve macro economic problems. Keynesians, free trade proponents, Greenspan, Bernanke...these all economists, these all economists whose theories have died, died. Few of them saw debt bubble and correctly predicted its result. The few that did were sort of lefties like Roubini and Krugman and their solutions (at least Krugman), more debt of average folks to banskters do not impress.
I took economics and engineering, and I have to say, modern academic economics is okay at a micro-level but is wholly whacked on global level. I feel they are saying their circlular orbits and newtons laws of gravity kind of predicts how things behave, don't look at those elliptical paths, don't even think about relativity or quantom mechanics.
I have learned much more on economics reading Steven Keen than I learned in school, and yes, he is an academic economist but he did write a book debunking modern economic theory and he debunks it with real math and science, equations.
Besides, I could say more scientists are democrats, does that mean....oh forget it...
Econ Majors != Economists...
Economists are generally hand-picked shills for whatever government / media outlet needs them to justify something crazy...
see Economic Hitman
see also Economic Terrorist
+10K
Only the Austrian theory economist got it right.
I could say only Steve Keen got it right, as he has some prediction on his side...or only Mises got it right...
you agree with Austrians, so they are only right ones?
I could say climate scientists got it right, there is global warming...and many would scream in disagreement...both sides have their valid points, rationale, and evidence, both sides think the other has corrupting forces affecting their science...and that is for something that should, on its face be fairly objective...is world getting hotter or cooler...so you think somehow you can know, for certain, Austrians got it right, when we can't agree on science describing the current physical condition of the earth, how are we ever going to find irrefutable truth on economic theory?
And disciples of Austrians have caused decades of carnage to many countries, while the countries that bucked their prescriptions fared better...
Education can often just equal ideological influence, not necessarily better wisdom....but of course, you central thesis seems to be only people ignorant of dollars and economics would propose an alternative to your idea of economics....while I see very smart, very studied economists like Steve Keen and Michael Hudson come to very different conclusions, not out of ignorance, but out of a different analysis that breeds different conclusions...
Yes, many people are have little economic or financial literacy, frankly I think its by design, because as AJ said, if we really knew what banksters up to...
"And disciples of Austrians have caused decades of carnage to many countries, while the countries that bucked their prescriptions fared better..."
Examples? I can't think of any.
By creating strong systems of individual rights and limits on government power, free-market types made possible the greatest levels of prosperity ever known, attracting redistributionist central-planner socialist-thug control-freak thieves.
Ergo, Austrians are to blame for all the failures of the opportunistic parasites.
+1
my thoughts exactly.
You must mean Schumpeter, since the rest of them got it wrong...
If Austrian gets mentioned at all...
I BS'd Physics and Math, then mastered in Econ. But I am not a 'scientist' in the Algore venacular.
Nor am I a Dimocrat. Education is valuable, if you use it.
Oh! I bet the comments here might be as acrimonius as an Israeli fleet seizure!
I'll be back later to see. I'm going to guess that our friend J. Bravo will not like this one... If he bothers to visit outside of gold threads.
"That's not saying much, but it does show that Democrats are more likely to be ignorant of economics."
It's not saying much at all. Economics is a lot like palm reading and astrology. Some times you're right and even if you aren't eventually you will be.
Apparently, you never studied any economics. You were probably a woman's studies major.
Math actually, Economists mostly focus on bullsh!t touchy feely things like emotions.